"There are two sorts of blockade," says Lord Stowell, in The Neptunus (1 Rob. 171), "one by the simple fact only, the other by a notification accompanied with the fact. In the former case, when the fact ceases (otherwise than by accident or the shifting of the wind), there is immediately an end of the blockade; but where the fact is accompanied by a public notification from the government of a belligerent country to neutral governments, the blockade must be supposed to exist till it has been publicly repealed, and notification of such repeal made, in the same way, by the belligerent country which has notified the blockade. This notification it is the duty of the belligerent country to make immediately; as, to suffer the fact to cease, and to apply the notification again at a distant time, would be a fraud on neutral nations."

"On the question of blockade, three things must be proved: 1st, the existence of an actual blockade; 2nd, the knowledge of the party; and 3rd, some act of violation, either by going in or by coming out with a cargo laden after the commencement of blockade. On this last point the time of shipment is very material; for although it might be hard to refuse a neutral liberty to retire with a cargo already laden, and by that act already become neutral property, yet after the commencement of a blockade, a neutral cannot be allowed to interfere in any way to assist the exportation of the property of the enemy. After the commencement of a blockade a neutral is no longer at liberty to make any purchase in that port." (Lord Stowell in The Betsey, 1 Robinson, 92.)

Actual blockade is the most essential element of legal blockade. The blockade of Havre was notified

by Great Britain, 23 Feb. 1798, for the purpose of preventing the invasion of this kingdom by France; but in November, 1799, no blockade of Havre was known to the British navy to be existing (The Neptunus, 2 Rob. 110); from that period, through the spring and summer of 1798, vessels were invariably permitted to pass in and out of that port. Many vessels were stopped and examined as to the property of the cargo, and the destination, and on other points, but no objection appears to have been taken on the ground of blockade; some were proceeded against on other grounds, and others were released. The ship Jungfrau Maria Schroeder went into Havre in May, 1799, having been met by The Stag frigate, and suffered to pass unmolested; she came out again on the 14th June, and saw no ship for forty-eight hours, and was seized at last off the North Foreland, by The Camperdown cutter. On the claim, before Lord Stowell, for the restitution of the vessel (3 Rob. 147), it was shown that on the 17th August, 1799, the British Admiralty transmitted orders to the captain of The Atalanta, "to proceed as expeditiously as possible to Havre, there to take under his command the ships he should find on that station, for the purpose of blocking up the coast, and watching the motion of the enemy, and protecting the island of St. Marcou till further orders;" but it was not until 27th September that the Admiralty sent orders to this officer "not to permit any vessel, whatever, to enter Havre." It was contended that this was the first declaration since November, 1798, that Havre was considered to be under a mercantile blockade, and that, consequently, between November, 1798, and the receipt of the Admiralty order of 27th September off Havre, the blockade

was to be considered as totally relaxed, which alone by the law of nations is held to operate as a legal cessation. "A blockade," says Bynkershoeck, "is virtually relaxed, si segnius oræ observatæ sint." Lord Stowell, in restoring the vessel, said: "It is perfectly clear, that a blockade had taken place some months before; and that the notification was communicated to the claimant's government, not only that a blockade would be imposed, but of a most rigorous kind; and I cannot entertain the least doubt, that the orders which were given by our Admiralty were conformable to it. It is impossible to suppose that the orders for carrying into effect a great measure, so materially affecting other states, would not be given by government with the utmost exactness. Yet, I cannot shut my eyes to a fact that presses upon the court, that the blockade has not been duly carried into effect. A temporary and forced secession of the blockading force, from the accidents of winds and storms, would not be sufficient to constitute a legal relaxation. But here ships are stopped and examined, and suffered to go in. The master of this particular vessel says, that, in coming out, he saw no ships for forty-eight hours. That might be accidental; but when he entered, they were on the station; yet no attempt was made to prevent him from going in. In other cases, also, it appears that no force was applied for the purpose of enforcing the blockade. There can be no doubt of the intention of the Admiralty, that neutral ships should not be permitted to go in ; but the fact is, that it was not in every instance carried into effect. What is a blockade, but to prevent access by force? If the ships stationed on the spot to keep up the blockade will not use their force for that purpose, it is

impossible for a court of justice to say there was a blockade actually existing at that time, so as to bind this vessel. It is in vain for government to impose blockades, if those employed in the service will not enforce them. The inconvenience is very great, and spreads far beyond the individual case; reports are eagerly circulated that the blockade is raised; foreigners take advantage of the information; the property of innocent persons is ensnared, and the honour of our own country is involved in the mistake."

The cargo, however, of vessels restored on the ground of remissness on the part of the blockading force, does not necessarily participate in the indulgence. In condemning the cargo of The Jungfrau Maria Schroeder, Lord Stowell said: "This ship was restored on the ground, that having, though by an improper indulgence, been allowed to go in with a cargo, she might be understood to be at liberty to come out with a cargo. The ship was restored; but it by no means follows, that the owners of the cargo stand on the same footing. That may have been shipped, in consequence of criminal orders directing it to be sent on any opportunity of slipping out. It is, therefore, not to be argued, that the release of the ship is any conclusive evidence respecting the cargo. An absolute order during the continuance of a blockade, if executed, must be considered to be a breach of the blockade; nor do I think that a provisional order, directing shipments to be made when the blockade should be raised, will avail for indulgence, should the blockade actually exist at the time when the order is carried into execution. The owners must take upon themselves to answer for the undue execution of the order, and make

the shippers answerable to them. If this rule was not adopted, there would be no end to shipments made during a blockade, whilst there would be nobody at all responsible for such acts of misconduct."

A blockade is then only to be considered as actually existing, when there is a power to enforce it. "The very notion of a complete blockade," said Lord Stowell, in The Stert (4 Rob. 66), "includes that the besieging force can apply its power to every point of the blockading state. If it cannot, it is no blockade, at that quarter where its power cannot be brought to bear; and where such a partial blockade is undertaken, it must be presumed, that this is no more than what was foreseen by the blockading state, which, nevertheless, thought proper to impose it to the extent to which it was practicable."

We find, however, from the case of The Frederick Molke (1 Rob. 86), that “it is not the absence of the blockading force, nor the circumstance of being blown off by the winds, if the suspension and the reason of the suspension are known, that would be sufficient in law to remove the blockade."

"Not only a single port," says Mr. Serjeant Marshall (On Insurance, B. 1, c. 3, s. 3; 1 Acton, 63), "but a number of ports, and even a great extent of coast, may be blockaded. In the month of March, 1799, the British government notified to all neutral powers, that the ports of Holland were all invested and blockaded by the British forces; and that every vessel, of whatever flag, every cargo, and every bottom, attempting to enter them, would become forfeited by the law of nations, as attempting to carry succour to the besieged. It must be admitted, that in no for